As India and Pakistan continue to exchange threats and rhetoric, the burden of their muscular posturing — from diplomatic isolation and economic strain to the weakening of regional stability — grows heavier with each passing day
After its partial victory against Pakistan in Op Sindoor 1.0, India’s political and military leadership has been emboldened to the brink of bravado; this is both risky and dangerous. This new normal after Op Sindoor is an unprecedented use of threatening war rhetoric. While politicians have made irresponsible and irrational threats against Pakistan after India became a nuclear weapons power to retake PoK, no Service Chief has made any grandiose claims of political intent to annihilate Pakistan — till COAS Gen Upendra Dwivedi’s recent declaration that if Pakistan continued with state-sponsored terrorism, India would not show the restraint it exhibited during Op Sindoor but would make Pakistan think whether it wanted to be on the map or not.
On the same day, October 3, Air Chief Marshal AP Singh briefed the media about how a defeated PAF had to sue for peace. He brushed aside IAF aircraft losses and claimed to have destroyed or damaged 12 to 13 Pakistani planes. On October 2, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, at Bhuj, warned Pakistan of a resounding response to any misadventure like in 1965, as it could alter Pakistan’s history and geography. In August, CNS Adm Dinesh Tripathi said that the Navy would be the first to take action against Pakistan in any future conflict — this after PM Narendra Modi had told Tripathi on 10 May, after the Op Sindoor ceasefire: “I have snatched a morsel from your mouth,” referring to the Navy preparing to launch a BrahMos missile at Karachi, “but your turn will come.” Targeting Pakistan with a chorus of threats by the highest political and military leadership is unprecedented. After the 2 and 3 October warnings to Rawalpindi, Pakistan retaliated with an all-caps statement: “If there was any national erasure, presumably brought about by nuclear weapons, it will be mutual.” Defence Minister Khawaja Asif told Pakistan’s Samaa TV that “chances of war with India are real.” If there is a war, India will be fighting a China-reinforced one-front war, as Rawalpindi and Beijing have integrated their operational capabilities and meshed the use of national assets and force multipliers. Further, Turkey will provide full military backup, with Arab countries supporting Pakistan following the recent Pakistan-Saudi Arabia mutual defence pact.
Most previous wars and skirmishes with Pakistan have ended in stalemate (except 1971 and Kargil), contrary to victory claims made by India. In Op Sindoor, the PAF gave a sterling demonstration of its air-to-air engagement prowess by eliminating several IAF aircraft — losses previously acknowledged by the CDS, DGMO, DGAO and, significantly, the French Air Force Chief, Gen Jerome Ballinger, who said there was evidence of three Indian losses — one Rafale, one Sukhoi, and one Mirage 2000. It was the first loss of a Rafale, which has been sold to eight countries. India fantasised its victory in terms of damage inflicted on Pakistani military infrastructure, with NSA Ajit Doval claiming 90 days after the war that “not a windowpane was damaged,” a statement dutifully endorsed by CDS Gen Chauhan. However, pictures of debris from downed aircraft near Bathinda and Srinagar were published in Indian newspapers.
Cpl Varun Kumar was awarded the Vayu Sena Medal “due to enemy missile strike at a forward air base.”Both India and Pakistan have created their own self-serving versions of Beyond Visual Range — non-contact skirmishes — embellishing valour by liberally decorating warriors with gallantry awards, many Indians without citations. Pakistan’s storytelling was better than India’s. Far from being isolated, Pakistan is being feted by the US, the world’s only superpower, which has re-hyphenated it with India.
No country has held Pakistan responsible for the Pahalgam terrorist attack except Israel and the Taliban — both pariah states, with the Taliban recognised only by Russia. Delhi drew the ire of President Trump by defending its strategic autonomy and stubbornly refusing to acknowledge his role (as distinct from that of the US) in facilitating the ceasefire. In order to spite India for its recalcitrance, Trump tells every world leader he meets in the White House that he organised the ceasefire and averted a nuclear war. He sometimes also says seven aircraft were lost in the skirmish. The cost of enhancing Modi’s muscular stature is high — 50 per cent tariffs, sanctions on the purchase of Russian oil, withdrawal of the waiver on Chabahar Port in Iran, likely EU sanctions, and more. How Modi can still call Trump “my friend” while congratulating him for the Gaza ceasefire is puzzling. Praising Netanyahu, who addressed an empty hall at the UNGA, is equally baffling.
At times, India’s diplomacy goes on autopilot. Any future war with Pakistan will be indecisive. The 1971 war fought in East Pakistan was made winnable. India had to ally with the Soviet Union for political and military cover to fight in East Pakistan, though it was billed as the ten-year Treaty of Peace and Friendship that referred to India’s non-alignment. Make no mistake — India cannot militarily seize PoK, which some Army Commanders have boasted can be done. India’s outdated defence policy harped on not losing an inch of territory.
After Op Sindoor, the IAF has put a spoke in the wheel of theatrisation, and the CDS has issued a number of policy papers on joint doctrines sans a national security policy. Let not the IAF think that air and space power will determine outcomes on the ground. Russia’s relentless air war in Ukraine has not significantly altered the battle lines.India has been unable to deter and stop state-sponsored terrorism. Neither Balakot nor Op Sindoor has been able to do so, but proven air power is non-escalatory. That is why Op Sindoor is on pause. India has been mowing the grass in Pakistan and PoK — not destroying the roots of terrorism there — as it does not have the political will or capability to fight beyond a limited war. In any case, a military solution is not available. India has repeatedly stated it will talk to Pakistan only on terrorism, while Pakistan wants comprehensive talks on all disputes. State-sponsored terrorism cannot be terminated militarily. Delhi should abandon issuing empty threats and be realistic.
The writer, a retired Major General, served as Commander, IPKF (South), Sri Lanka, and was a founder member of the Defence Planning Staff, now the Integrated Defence Staff
